DS,
No disrespect intended but my name is Integrity not Mr. Integrity.
I have only called in 2 anonymous concerns to the UPS Help Line.
Are you suggesting that I should fear retaliation or retribution for bringing forth an anonymous concern to the UPS Help Line?
Sincerely,
I
stop and think about what you guys are talking about here.The concern line is not and never was intended to be a "let me call anonymously and get package cars modified concern line." So what was the purpose of the call? was it to prove you can't get fleet modifications done calling the help line anonymously while posting like a pompass ass on the brown cafe? hey high and mighty lets go for air conditioning in the back of package cars next. Please call the help line anonymously and then shock us by telling us you couldnt get anything done. I can't believe you guys are feeding this jerks stupidity.
stop and think about what you guys are talking about here.The concern line is not and never was intended to be a "let me call anonymously and get package cars modified concern line." So what was the purpose of the call? was it to prove you can't get fleet modifications done calling the help line anonymously while posting like a pompass ass on the brown cafe? hey high and mighty lets go for air conditioning in the back of package cars next. Please call the help line anonymously and then shock us by telling us you couldnt get anything done. I can't believe you guys are feeding this jerks stupidity.
C'mon, Tie! I might agree with you EXCEPT for their reply:
"The Response:
Thank the caller. Please advise the caller that more specific information will be required to adequately investigate this allegation. Please ask the caller to provide additional , specific information such as job location and type, names of people involved and to whom, if anyone, he or she has reported this information. This call will be closed at this time."
This is a BS response that means NOTHING. They should have been HONEST:
"We're sorry Mr Integrity. We're certainly not going to do anything about your concern. In fact, we're rolling on the floor laughing about it. But thank you for calling."
Why weren't they at least honest? They certainly don't need "more specific information". Why don't they just say "It would cost too much"? I could then respect the honesty. But I can't respect the BS reply the Hotline came back with.
the line is there if the boss is making you perform unsafe acts. Its not there for getting package cars modified.
[/COLOR]
So its "safe" to drive a package car that was designed to allow the drivers head to smash thru the windshield in a collision? So its "safe" to intentionally refuse to equip that vehicle with a belt that would prevent this from occurring?
The help line isnt there to prevent the boss from making us perform unsafe acts. Thats what the contract, the grievance procedure, OSHA, DOT and federal laws are for. The help line is there to allow a bunch of pinheads from Corporate to pretend that they give a damn without having to prove it by spending any money.
It would help if you could show at least one violation of law, policy, or procedure.
I think riding in any vehicle is less safe than not riding in a vehicle. Should I call it in and expect a resolution? Its an unfounded concern. It's less safe to ride in a passenger car than it is to ride in an old package car. Should UPS prohibit people from driving their own car to work?
the line is there if the boss is making you perform unsafe acts. Its not there for getting package cars modified.
Then once again, why weren't they honest? Why didn't they simply say that? "I'm sorry Mr Integrity, but this hotline is not meant to fix that type of concern".
I suppose you could say the boss was making me perform an unsafe act by sending me out in that car, but I would settle for an honest response from the Hotline.
How is that relevant?
So it's less safe to ride in (or drive) a passenger car than it is to ride in an old package car? Hold on a minute...
Its relevant because there has to be some standard to judge when action is warranted. I don't think the line is there to report your opinion on whats safe. Local, state and federal government says they meet safety requirements. Statistics and general knowledge show they are more safe than most vehicles. Of course they could be made safer, just like every other vehicle on the road, but they're already more safe than most. How is "unsafe" to be defined?
I guarantee you that given the chance no one would invest a few hundred dollars of their own money for these supposedly necessary safety improvements. Why should the company invest the share owners money if the people most benefited by the expense are unwilling to?
If you purchased a new car for your wife or daughter to drive....would you choose to eliminate the 3 point belt in favor of a lap belt in order to save yourself $50?
Thats what UPS chose to do.
Most of the vehicles in question were designed from the factory to be compatible with the 3 pt belts that were an option at that time. They could be easily upgraded to modern standards using factory, bolt-on parts.
I did this myself with my personal truck, a 1976 Chevy 3/4 ton pickup. It had lap belts only, but the attachment point for the 3 pt belt was in the roof pillar. I bought used 3 pt belts for that same model from a wrecking yard and had them bolted on. I think I spent about $50 on them. They were a $35 option from the factory in 1976.
And if push came to shove...I would be more than willing to pay for such an upgrade to the package car I drove everyday. My life may not be worth $50 to UPS, but it sure as hell is worth $50 to me and if UPS were unable to afford such upgrades after posting $850 million in profits last year I guess I would just have to dig deep and pay for it myself.
We are not allowed to modify our vehicles in any way. This was made clear to us when, years ago, drivers were tapping into power lines in their trucks to run their radios. In other words, we are stuck with what we are given and we should take it or leave it...
They added jump seats, lower hand rails, DIAD holders, telematics equipment, antennas for the early DIADs, new steering wheels with better grip etc. I'm pretty sure they can modify the truck when they see fit.
Incorrect.
The vehicles in question did meet the bare minimum safety standards in the year that they were built. They would not meet the minimum standards in place today and they would be illegal to dispatch onto a public road. Essentially, these vehicles are only legal to drive because they are "grandfathered in". In other words...UPS is taking advantage of a loophole in order to avoid having to provide safe equipment for its people to operate.
As to the question of "how is unsafe to be defined".....common sense would be a good place to start. Common sense tells me that if I can buckle the lap belt and still lean forward far enough to rest my forehead on the windshield and my jawbone on top of an unpadded steering wheel...the car is unsafe to drive.
I agree that it would be more safe. I just don't see that the risk is significant enough to warrant spending 10s of millions. It's not a $50 issue. .
It could certainly be done for less money than is being spent on that same package car to install telematic sensors. That tells you where the companies priorities "lie".Thats pretty easy to say when the only thing you drive is a desk.
And your "tens of millions" figure is pure BS. The majority of UPS's package car fleet was built after '95 and already has 3 pt belts. It would not cost 10's of millions of dollars to replace the belts in the older cars. It could be done for less than is currently being spent on making us recite safety acronyms in order to pass Keter audits.
Thats pretty easy to say when the only thing you drive is a desk.
And your "tens of millions" figure is pure BS. The majority of UPS's package car fleet was built after '95 and already has 3 pt belts. It would not cost 10's of millions of dollars to replace the belts in the older cars. It could be done for less than is currently being spent on making us recite safety acronyms in order to pass Keter audits.